• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

ASR Directiva Open Source Speaker Review

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
Please let me preface by saying I've never actually built a passive network, and I'm sure I've made mistakes.
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm (probably do anyway), but you should be careful to keep within the E12 range for component values. Otherwise, people will have to start unwinding coils.

Since, due to non-optimal initial measurements, there are slight differences between VCAD and real measurements (which is usually not the case), you should always include the difference from the measured version v20 as an overlay to have a reference.

And it would be, IMO, better to discuss such specific things in the Directiva crossover thread.
 

Arc Acoustics

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
74
Likes
53
Location
Japan
I am not sure if you intend this, but your comments are coming off a "Tad" harsh.

A lot of thought went into this design, and maybe wait till you get to hear it, or a revised version (assuming that happens) before being too critical.

I realize you seem to have very high standards, but maybe this design is not meant to be the ultimate speaker ever.
Well, because some guys mentioned cost and comparing with retailed loudspeakers, I wrote my personal verdict "as a product" from its design and measurements.
Yes, Directiva can play louder just because it has a larger, very good and pricy woofer, but there is a rather big drawback because of the 2way design, and that drawback got bigger because of design limitation (retailed waveguided tweeter).
This makes unbalanced "as a product" (again), which is what I wrote.
But as a DIY project, who cares? (and it is simply out of my mentioning)

If that is the case why don't you start a new design and we will talk about it?
Thanks but I can do (and have done) what I said all my own so I do not have a particular thing to talk about my design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zvu

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,518
Likes
7,029
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Well, because some guys mentioned cost and comparing with retailed loudspeakers, I wrote my personal verdict "as a product" from its design and measurements.
Yes, Directiva can play louder just because it has a larger, very good and pricy woofer, but there is a rather big drawback because of the 2way design, and that drawback got bigger because of design limitation (retailed waveguided tweeter).
This makes unbalanced "as a product" (again), which is what I wrote.
But as a DIY project, who cares? (and it is simply out of my mentioning)


Thanks but I can do (and have done) what I said all my own so I do not have a particular thing to talk about my design.

I see you you recently did your own speaker design called Ekta. It looks like a good start. I also understand it is based on a Troels design. That is a good approach for a new designer.

If you prefer not to discuss it, that is fine. Just so others can see, am sharing the link from your signature here. As you are fairly new to ASR, there is a high standard for discussion here. Unless you support your claims with evidence or show superior competency, it is simply your opinion. Suggest you keep in mind that you are not alone in having high standards. :)
 
Last edited:

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
As this is a DIY project I urge the designer to consider to offset the drivers. An inch (or so) thick overlay panel for the low frequency driver is very simple to implement but it will help the FR dramatically.
3/4" (or 18mm for the Europeans here) panel is enough to fix the biggest issue, 25mm (or an inch) works slightly better even.

It's always a matter of trade-offs (for a passive version of the Directiva). What compromises is one willing to make.

I confess my bias, I am not a fan of it.
The developers who use this technique usually forget to point out the disadvantages of stepped baffles or don't do vertical measurements anyway.

I think it's easy to understand that this introduces new sources of edge diffraction in the vertical direction.

Let's just play through the matter for the Directiva (otherwise nobody will believe me anyway). For this purpose, we only consider the effects on the vertical tweeter frequency response.

Normal Directiva version versus stepped version with only 18mm offset (the edge was beveled to the front, hope you can see that on the sketch):
1633721446364.png 1633721364297.png
The normal Directiva is somewhat at a disadvantage because of the influence of the woofer cone, the stepped version lacks this influence on the frequency response of the tweeter - keep that in mind.

Now let's look at the vertical sonogram normalized to axis for both versions (negative angles in the sonogram point upwards):
1633722021144.png 1633722036290.png
I think the trade-off is easy to see.


What does this mean for the, in most listening rooms, unattenuated ceiling reflection?

For this we compare the deviations of the vertical 40°, 50° and 60° frequency responses with the axial frequency response - more details see ANSI-CTA-2034.
The more similar these frequency responses are to the axial frequency response, the less "colored" the reflections sound. The line in cyan at 0dB is on-axis FR:
1633722427198.png 1633722453517.png

So, now everyone must decide for themselves what they are willing to put up with for something better phase alignment for one point in space.

Update: Besides, the vertical distance between tweeter and woofer must be slightly increased for the stepped version.
 
Last edited:

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm (probably do anyway), but you should be careful to keep within the E12 range for component values. Otherwise, people will have to start unwinding coils.

Since, due to non-optimal initial measurements, there are slight differences between VCAD and real measurements (which is usually not the case), you should always include the difference from the measured version v20 as an overlay to have a reference.

And it would be, IMO, better to discuss such specific things in the Directiva crossover thread.

It's always a matter of trade-offs (for a passive version of the Directiva). What compromises is one willing to make.

I confess my bias, I am not a fan of it.
The developers who use this technique usually forget to point out the disadvantages of stepped baffles or don't do vertical measurements anyway.

I think it's easy to understand that this introduces new sources of edge diffraction in the vertical direction.

Let's just play through the matter for the Directiva (otherwise nobody will believe me anyway). For this purpose, we only consider the effects on the vertical tweeter frequency response.

Normal Directiva version versus stepped version with only 18mm offset (the edge was beveled to the front, hope you can see that on the sketch):
View attachment 157953 View attachment 157951
The normal Directiva is somewhat at a disadvantage because of the influence of the woofer cone, the stepped version lacks this influence on the frequency response of the tweeter - keep that in mind.

Now let's look at the vertical sonogram normalized to axis for both versions (negative angles in the sonogram point upwards):
View attachment 157955 View attachment 157956
I think the trade-off is easy to see.


What does this mean for the, in most listening rooms, unattenuated ceiling reflection?

For this we compare the deviations of the vertical 40°, 50° and 60° frequency responses with the axial frequency response - more details see ANSI-CTA-2034.
The more similar these frequency responses are to the axial frequency response, the less "colored" the reflections sound. The line in cyan at 0dB is on-axis FR:
View attachment 157957 View attachment 157958

So, now everyone must decide for themselves what they are willing to put up with for something better phase alignment for one point in space.

Update: Besides, the vertical distance between tweeter and woofer must be slightly increased for the stepped version.

Thanks for simulating this. I was wondering about the exact effect of the step. As you point out, it's all about trade-offs. Personally I'm all in favor of active speakers.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,916
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
but there is a rather big drawback because of the 2way design, and that drawback got bigger because of design limitation (retailed waveguided tweeter).
This makes unbalanced "as a product" (again), which is what I wrote.
Out of curiosity, why on Earth do you have a problem with an off the shelf part?
A huge quantity of manufactures use off the shelf drivers or drivers with only minimal variation - (variation mainly implemented in order to claim some bespoke quality)
Many excellent speakers can and have been designed with readily available drivers.
Especially in DIY land where only a rare design has a custom part.

Based on all of the tests I have read, this is an excellent tweeter. One I had not considered much before this project. After reading more about the tweeter I am very impressed. Especially as it reasonably affordable or at least under $100 USD.



 

Arc Acoustics

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
74
Likes
53
Location
Japan
I see you you recently did your own speaker design called Ekta. It looks like a good start. I also understand it is based on a Troels design. That is a good approach for a new designer.

If you prefer not to discuss it, that is fine. Just so others can see, am sharing the link from your signature here. As you are fairly new to ASR, there is a high standard for discussion here. Unless you support your claims with evidence or show superior competency, it is simply your opinion. Suggest you keep in mind that you are not alone in having high standards. :)

My design is irrelevant to my verdict to the Directiva "as a product".
I did not read the original thread so I don't know who designed or build this, some may have high standards, who knows, but certainly the Directiva doesn't.

Out of curiosity, why on Earth do you have a problem with an off the shelf part?
A huge quantity of manufactures use off the shelf drivers or drivers with only minimal variation - (variation mainly implemented in order to claim some bespoke quality)
Many excellent speakers can and have been designed with readily available drivers.
Especially in DIY land where only a rare design has a custom part.

Based on all of the tests I have read, this is an excellent tweeter. One I had not considered much before this project. After reading more about the tweeter I am very impressed. Especially as it reasonably affordable or at least under $100 USD.

A. The woofer is big for a 2way direct radiator design.
B. DXT is relatively small for a 2way design. (suites for 3way or compact 2way)
C. DXT does not have that good directivity even in HF.
D. DXT does not sound right but this is purely my perception.
E. Yes, DXT and the enclosure is cheap, and PTT6.5 is not.

As I mentioned, off the shelf driver is not a problem, but off the shelf waveguide is, especially this kind of irregular configuration.
In DIY land it may okay but "as a product", whole thing makes Directiva unbalanced.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,916
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
My design is irrelevant to my verdict to the Directiva "as a product".
I did not read the original thread so I don't know who designed or build this, some may have high standards, who knows, but certainly the Directiva doesn't.



A. The woofer is big for a 2way direct radiator design.
B. DXT is relatively small for a 2way design. (suites for 3way or compact 2way)
C. DXT does not have that good directivity even in HF.
D. DXT does not sound right but this is purely my perception.
E. Yes, DXT and the enclosure is cheap, and PTT6.5 is not.

As I mentioned, off the shelf driver is not a problem, but off the shelf waveguide is, especially this kind of irregular configuration.
In DIY land it may okay but "as a product", whole thing makes Directiva unbalanced.
Are you familiar with the "Dunning-Kruger Effect"?
 

Arc Acoustics

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
74
Likes
53
Location
Japan
Are you familiar with the "Dunning-Kruger Effect"?
The first rule of DK club, is that you are never aware that you are in the club.
Well, if I am at the peak of mount stupid, then you can pull me down to the valley of despair by the design or measurements. :)
And again, my verdict is irrelevant to my level.
I can not say a soft thing to the Directiva "as a product", because it's so unfair to the "competitor" (if I can call them) such as Neumann, Genelec, etc., they are manufacturing well balanced, properly designed products.
 
Last edited:

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
440
Likes
3,706
Location
French, living in China
As some of you know, we have had a project to design an open-source speaker based on Purifi driver. It has been led by our member, @Rick Sykora who has named it "Directiva." You can read about it here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...r-open-source-platform-speaker-project.20407/

The idea came about from a hypothesis: if a speaker design had access to Klippel Near-field scanner, would he be able to design a super speaker? I own the speaker but I am not a speaker designer so it made sense to have others help create one. The results of that work is now here in the form of a prototype built by Rick with much help on design side from member @ctrl.

Other than the crinkled woofer from Purifi, there is not much to distinguish this speaker from any other DIY prototype:

View attachment 157072

I let Rick chime in with the choice of tweeter. On the back side, we have an SB Acoustics passive radiator:

View attachment 157073

My understanding is that a traditional port design is difficult for the Purifi driver and hence the use of the radiator.

Connectivity is provided through a SpeakOn connector which provides dual set of inputs, one for tweeter and one for woofer.

This is an active design so I build a compact system to drive it comprising of the Minidsp 2x4 HD and SMSL VMV A2 desktop amplifier. The combination sat on top of the speaker with a pad under it. It was actually a bit smaller than it which helped with not creating diffraction error or changing baffle compensation.

Two scans were performed with the second one employing minor refinements.

ASR Directiva Measurements
Here is our spin graph:

View attachment 157074

I must say, the flatness of the on-axis response put a big smile on my face. I am only used to seeing such an accurate response when measuring DSP based active monitors. Not only that, the early window directivity mirrors the on-axis smoothly and only has a minor dip between 2 and 3 kHz.

Drilling into the early window reflections, we see that it is the vertical axis that is responsible for that dip:

View attachment 157075

Hard to do much better without a coaxial driver. Fortunately the floor is most responsible for that so as usual, put a thick rug there and you should be able to get better response than that. Assuming you don't do that, you still get a very nice predicted in-room frequency response:

View attachment 157076
Driver and radiator response is clean:

View attachment 157078

Maybe having a little filter to pull that bump above 10 kHz down a couple of dBs but likely won't be audible.

Our beamwidth measurement is excellent:

View attachment 157077

There is slight narrowing but we need that to keep the speaker from sounding too bright as it lights up all surfaces otherwise.

Horizontal directivity as a result looks pretty:

View attachment 157079

We have the usual non-perfect vertical directivity but it is better than many 2-way speakers:

View attachment 157080

This is a speaker that is room friendly.

CSD/Waterfall shows some resonances:

View attachment 157081

Some of this could be because of the DSP and and amp being on top of the amp as the enclosure feels solid as a rock.

We see more evidence of the resonances in distortion measurements which otherwise are excellent:

View attachment 157082

View attachment 157083

Directiva Listening Tests
These days it takes me so little time to tell if overall tonality is right. And such was the case here. I felt no need to reach for EQ although at times I thought upper bass was a bit weak. I think speakers with distortion generate harmonics that land in that region. Take that away and the perception is a cleaner but slightly leaner upper bass. I am emphasizing upper bass as Directiva was able to deliver good bit of sub-bass. I didn't want to mess with EQ as you really need to measure the room+speaker response and correct for that.

The sound was very clean, making me want to really crank up the volume. When I pushed that hard, I could sometimes hear a bit of ticking sound. I am not sure if the the minidsp was saturating its input or the driver was the issue. By then the volume was pretty loud and with two speakers you would be fine.

I tested for tweeter hiss and unfortunately it was bad in this configuration. I could easily hear it up to about 2 feet away. Minidsp supports Toslink and ideally you would be using that input and avoid its ADC and my pre-amp. That would have required me ripping out my listening room even more so I did not go there. Fortunately unlike powered monitors, with a kit like this, you can play with such options (and amplification) to get the best noise and power capability you need.

DIY Build Cost
Rick tells me that the cost for the components to build a pair is about US $1,300 to $1,400. A commercial implementation with fancy finish and such would then land at $4K to $5K rang which would be pretty expensive given the lack of DSP and amplification cost on top of that. For DIY though, it makes sense.

Conclusions
Well, the hypothesis is proven: get a few smart people together and give them a Klippel NFS measurement system and they too can produce world-class speaker performance. I am very pleased with how the project has come out, showing the power of the community to come together to follow the best in science, engineering and simulation technology. Thanks to all of you who contributed. I am proud of you all!

P.S. Just in case @MZKM is sleep right now, he was kind enough to give me his preference scores:

Preference Rating
SCORE: 6.5
SCORE w/ sub: 8.0

Frequency response: +/- 1.9dB 40Hz-20kHz
LFX: 34Hz

index.php

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.4
With Sub: 8.1

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • All around very good
  • Excellent engineering
Directiva V2 No EQ Spinorama.png


Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 0/10deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

Directiva V2 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png
Directiva V2 LW better data.png


EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
  • Minor mid/HF tweaks

Score EQ LW: 6.5
with sub: 8.2

Score EQ Score: 6.7
with sub: 8.4

Code:
Directiva V2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October092021-120114

Preamp: -2.9 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 40.15,    0.00,    1.12
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 395.46,    0.90,    1.76
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1418.63,    1.03,    2.32
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2492.97,    2.42,    2.35
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5070.14,    2.13,    2.40
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9092.58,    1.23,    0.93

Directiva V2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October092021-115902

Preamp: -2.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.90,    0.00,    1.12
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 369.16,    0.85,    3.85
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1571.81,    0.53,    3.81
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2502.22,    2.53,    2.32
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5719.44,    -0.53,    0.40
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5159.63,    2.11,    2.16
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8525.42,    0.81,    2.79


Directiva V2 EQ Design.png


Spinorama EQ LW
Directiva V2 LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Directiva V2 Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Directiva V2 Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal flat ON with EQ score
Directiva V2 Regression - Tonal.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Small improvements
Directiva V2 Radar.png


The rest of the plots is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Directiva V2 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Directiva V2 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    267.8 KB · Views: 66
  • Directiva V2 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Directiva V2 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    451.1 KB · Views: 65
  • Directiva V2 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Directiva V2 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    450.6 KB · Views: 60
  • Directiva V2 Normalized Directivity data.png
    Directiva V2 Normalized Directivity data.png
    312.3 KB · Views: 64
  • Directiva V2 Raw Directivity data.png
    Directiva V2 Raw Directivity data.png
    470.3 KB · Views: 55
  • Directiva V2 Reflexion data.png
    Directiva V2 Reflexion data.png
    135 KB · Views: 53
  • Directiva V2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    387 bytes · Views: 51
  • Directiva V2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    338 bytes · Views: 48
  • Directiva V2 LW data.png
    Directiva V2 LW data.png
    125.4 KB · Views: 40

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,200
Are you familiar with the "Dunning-Kruger Effect"?
Well according to his signature he has designed his first loudspeaker which has a predicted score of 8.5 and he has some little points on the DXT problems so I wouldn't call him D&K, on the other hand I find his appearance surprisingly arrogant especially for being Japanese who are usually very humble or just living in Japan.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Well according to his signature he has designed his first loudspeaker which has a predicted score of 8.5 and he has some little points on the DXT problems so I wouldn't call him D&K, on the other hand I find his appearance surprisingly arrogant especially for being Japanese who are usually very humble or just living in Japan.

with 1/3 octave smoothing any speaker can have 8.5 score lmfao.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.4
With Sub: 8.1

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • All around very good
  • Excellent engineering
View attachment 158057

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 0/10deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

View attachment 158059View attachment 158063

EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
  • Minor mid/HF tweaks

Score EQ LW: 6.5
with sub: 8.2

Score EQ Score: 6.7
with sub: 8.4

Code:
Directiva V2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October092021-120114

Preamp: -2.9 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 40.15,    0.00,    1.12
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 395.46,    0.90,    1.76
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1418.63,    1.03,    2.32
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2492.97,    2.42,    2.35
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5070.14,    2.13,    2.40
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9092.58,    1.23,    0.93

Directiva V2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October092021-115902

Preamp: -2.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.90,    0.00,    1.12
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 369.16,    0.85,    3.85
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1571.81,    0.53,    3.81
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2502.22,    2.53,    2.32
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5719.44,    -0.53,    0.40
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5159.63,    2.11,    2.16
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8525.42,    0.81,    2.79


View attachment 158053

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 158056

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 158055

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 158054

Regression - Tonal flat ON with EQ score
View attachment 158058

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Small improvements
View attachment 158051

The rest of the plots is attached.

Thanks for the analysis! I was always curious why @ctrl didn't go all in since it's an active design. However now one might argue that losing around 3dB of sensitivity is not worth the improvements!
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Only midwits cite DKE. Because they cannot articulate their position/argument in a convincing fashion.

If we can leave out the overt rudeness, that'd be great.
 

Arc Acoustics

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
74
Likes
53
Location
Japan
Well according to his signature he has designed his first loudspeaker which has a predicted score of 8.5 and he has some little points on the DXT problems so I wouldn't call him D&K, on the other hand I find his appearance surprisingly arrogant especially for being Japanese who are usually very humble or just living in Japan.

Choosing Neumann over Directiva because of its well-balanced, well-engineered design sounds arrogant for you, you can call me sod, bastard, whatever you want, I really do not care.
But again, my verdict to the Directiva's is irrelevant to my personality, neither race nor Ekta's design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aac

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,518
Likes
7,029
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
As this is a DIY project I urge the designer to consider to offset the drivers. An inch (or so) thick overlay panel for the low frequency driver is very simple to implement but it will help the FR dramatically.

I did not do any fancy baffle, just to keep easier to build. As for an z-axis offset, can do this via delay in the dsp (and we do in the initial XO).

So, why do more woodworking?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JRS

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
I did not do any fancy baffle, just to keep easier to build. As for an z-axis offset, can do this via delay in the dsp (and we do in the intitial XO).

So, why do more woodworking?
My comment was for the passive version that was posted here.
 
Top Bottom